A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 111. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 8 and 9). The Court also received the affidavits made by the presumed victims Awilda Medina, Markenson Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Antonio Sensión, Ana Lidia Sensión Nolasco, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Janise Midi and Bersson Gelin, proposed by the representatives, as well as of the witness Carmen Maribel Ferreras Mella, proposed by the State, and of the expert witnesses Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez, and Rosa del Rosario Lara, proposed by the representatives, and Fernando Ignacio Ferrán Brú (hereinafter also “expert witness Fernando I. Ferrán Brú”, or “Mr. Ferrán Brú” or “expert witness Ferrán Brú”) and Manuel Núñez Asencio (hereinafter also “expert witness Núñez Asencio”), proposed by the State. As for the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victim Willian Medina Ferreras, proposed by the representatives, and of the expert witnesses Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, proposed by the Commission, Bridget Frances Wooding (hereinafter also “Bridget Wooding” or “expert witness Bridget Wooding”) and Carlos Enrique Quesada Quesada (hereinafter also “Carlos Quesada Quesada” or “Carlos Quesada”), proposed by the representatives, and Juan Bautista Tavarez Gómez and Cecilio Esmeraldo Gómez Pérez (hereinafter also “Cecilio Gómez Pérez” or “expert witness Gómez Pérez”), proposed by the State. 77 112. On October 1, 2013, the representatives advised that Tahira Vargas had serious health problems that meant she was unable to provide her expert opinion; they therefore waived her presentation. B) Admission of the documentary evidence 113. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity, that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not challenged, to the extent that they are pertinent and useful to determine the facts and their eventual legal consequences. 78 However, the Court will now make some clarifications and decide the discrepancies that have been expressed concerning the admissibility of certain documents. 114. Newspaper articles. 79 The Court has considered that newspaper articles may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to the verified. 80 115. Documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of Internet links. The parties and the Commission have indicated several documents by means of Internet links. The Court has established that if a party or the Commission provides, at least the direct Internet link to the document that it cites as evidence, and it is possible to access it, 77 The purpose of all these statements was established in the Order of the President of the Court of September 6, 2013, supra para. 12. 78 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 54. 79 The parties and the Commission presented numerous newspaper articles. 80 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 146, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 58. 34